PDA

View Full Version : f4u-4 :)



fordfan25
10-31-2004, 07:51 PM
F4U-4
The first F4U-4 was delivered to the US Navy on 31 October 1944. The F4U-4 was powered by C-series Double Wasp engine. The installed model was the R-2800-18W, later replaced by the R-2800-42W. It had a war emergency power of 2760hp. A four-bladed propeller replaced the three-bladed one of the F4U-1. A chin scoop was added to the underside of the engine cowling. The F4U-4 could reach a speed of 726km/h.
During the F4U-4 production, the cockpit was redesigned again. It now incorporated a flat, bullet-proof windscreen, a revised canopy, an armoured seat, and an improved instrument panel.

Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six .50 guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon, a single F4U-4N nightfighter conversion and nine F4U- 4P reconnaissance modifications. The last one was delivered in August 1947. Plans to produce the F4U-4 by Goodyear as the FG-4 were abandoned.

The F4U-4 arrived late in WWII, and served only during the last four months of the conflict. The war of the F4U-4 was the Korean war. Here the type served mainly as a fighter-bomber, but nevertheless one pilot, Capt. J. Folmar of VMA-312, was credited with shooting down a MiG-15.


726 km/h hmmmm. ill take one of those and an apple pie please lol

SkyChimp
10-31-2004, 08:27 PM
Keep on wish'n. People are saying the F4U-1 is too good. What would happen with the F4U-4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fordfan25
10-31-2004, 08:47 PM
lol, i know right. would be nice though. and unlike the bearcat "wich missed COMBAT flight by like two weeks lol" i think i read the f4u-4 was in service in 1944. right? not like it would be unbeatble. the la7 and bf109k were compairable if not a little faster. and i think at least one of the "high end" fighters in game is from 1945.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-31-2004, 10:02 PM
I am one of those saying the Corsair is too good, but I am also one of the most eager to fly it with a more realistic FM.

If they get that sorted out I would love to see an F4U-4. It would be pretty scary at 446mph at 26,000 feet.

It would be great for '45 type stuff, I believe the first production F4U-4 was on Sep. 20 1944, with deliveries beginning in late October or early November. Not sure when service/combat missions began or more importantly, when it scored its first kill. (anyone?)

What would be really scary would be if they modelled the Goodyear F2G with a 3,000hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major 28 cylinder radial. It was optimized for low level operations IIRC, but only 8 prototypes were completed (again IIRC).

fordfan25
10-31-2004, 10:16 PM
well as far as the corsair now goes, from every thing iv read about it i think its turn rate "might" be just a bit to sharp at the lower speeds. it is hard to stall i just hope if thay change it thay dont tone it down to much.the thing about it is it at least for me seems to be a major dog as far as speed goes.i cant get it anywere near its rated top speed and its acelaration is a lot slower than the impresions iv got by reading things. what do you guys think?

although with the exeptions of the MANY bugs iv had with the game im happy with the content now. but just like FB i would like in the not so far future to get some added planes Avenger being #1 on that list lol. but i think it would be kool to have the f4u-4 and maby even the p-47n http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .....amaricen power baby lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. the resone i dont mentune any japane stuff is i dont know to much about them ....yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif so dont think im all about the US only http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Badsight
10-31-2004, 10:24 PM
even the P-51H got to fly patrol during WW2 . . . . imagine if it got some bandits to pounce on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

its true that the P-80 should have been a better crate than the P-80 we have in FB ? (it is a YP-80 in FB isnt it ?)

*cranks up Google*

fordfan25
10-31-2004, 11:04 PM
yes i remember every one saying it was the yp-80. i would think we will get a f4u-4 in a futer patch "cross's fingures". that and the p47n or m

fordfan25
10-31-2004, 11:06 PM
o ya and also, what was that fighter the japanes had, it was a stock cfs2 plane. looks kinda like a p-47. i think the japanes name translated into god of thunder or something like that. man now that was a cool fighter

Philipscdrw
10-31-2004, 11:49 PM
The Shiden? I haven't touched CFS2 for years, or studied the IJN or IJA at all, but I remember that name. Shiden means 'Purple Lightning' or something like that, maybe just 'Lightning', but the aircraft in the game was 'Shiden-Kai', where Kai means improved.

NegativeGee
11-01-2004, 01:30 AM
Violet lightning IIRC?

We might hope to see the first Shiden flyable that is currently AI at the moment. I think it will upset alot of Allied flyers though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Automatic combat flaps.... yeah baby! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

stansdds
11-01-2004, 03:57 AM
The F4U-4 saw its first combat mission on April 7, 1945.

fordfan25
11-01-2004, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
Violet lightning IIRC?

We might hope to see the first Shiden flyable that is currently AI at the moment. I think it will upset alot of Allied flyers though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Automatic combat flaps.... yeah baby! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why would it do that? i checked its stats out in the object viewer and it did not seem like much to me. it looks like the one i remeber from cfs2 but the one i remember was alot faster. maby im thinking of a late war version.

Lifetaker999
11-01-2004, 12:04 PM
There is nothing wrong with the FM of the F4U in the sim. I aee there is alot of bias and a large population of the mis/uninformed in this forum. Thank goodness Oleg has not given in to the know it all crowd. Just fly.

Bogun
11-01-2004, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Keep on wish'n. People are saying the F4U-1 is too good. What would happen with the F4U-4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it - you Skychimp don€t think that F4U-1 is too good? I am not talking about its speed, but current ability for turning without stall/spin at any speed? This thing now can stay with the Zero in the turnfight, for god sake...

Common Chimp, admit it €" F4U FM is off, way off...

From reading €œAmerica Hundred thousand€ and all those flight magazines €" we can have pretty good understanding what Corsair strong and weak points were and as it stand now €" there no weak points.

NegativeGee
11-01-2004, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
why would it do that? i checked its stats out in the object viewer and it did not seem like much to me. it looks like the one i remeber from cfs2 but the one i remember was alot faster. maby im thinking of a late war version. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking of the "superb performance" comment.... maybe a slip of the english, but maybe not.

Neither the Shiden or Kai were super fast (362 and 369 mph), but their manvouverability was supposed to be incredible.... couple that will all that engine power and 4x 20mm and you have a great fighter... especially if you stuck it on a 1942 server.

fordfan25
11-01-2004, 01:33 PM
o yea in early war thay would be a killer

fordfan25
11-01-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Keep on wish'n. People are saying the F4U-1 is too good. What would happen with the F4U-4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it - you Skychimp don€t think that F4U-1 is too good? I am not talking about its speed, but current ability for turning without stall/spin at any speed? This thing now can stay with the Zero in the turnfight, for god sake...

Common Chimp, admit it €" F4U FM is off, way off...

From reading €œAmerica Hundred thousand€ and all those flight magazines €" we can have pretty good understanding what Corsair strong and weak points were and as it stand now €" there no weak points. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no it can not stay with a zero in a turn, in this game not even close.even aginst the AI it gets beat in a simple turn fight espiecaly when it starts out on your 6.as long as the zero stays in the fight and doesnt try to run. at higher speeds with just a single turn yes it is a little bit better. the only thing i see wrong with it other than it not a -4 hehehe is it doesnt stall out like iv read at LOW speeds.

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2004, 04:52 PM
Apparently Soburo Sakai despised the Shiden or Shiden Kai while less experienced pilots were in love with it... something about lousy workmanship.

I've also repeatedly heard bad things about engine reliability. Furthermore, I believe that it had rather anemic power at altitude. More than once I've read that they had to settle for a less than satisfactory engine choice since the intended engine was repeatedly delayed due to American strategic bombing.

Does anyone have any more specific information?

On paper though, that plane certainly looks sweet!

SkyChimp
11-01-2004, 07:01 PM
There's no way I'm ready to say the F4U-1 is "too good." I haven't tested it, or seen anything to suggest its too good. Just a lot of people that complain that it doesn't fit their preconceived perceptions. Stay with a Zero in a turn? At what speed? Below 250 mph IAS then I say bull****. Above 250 mph it should be able to stay with a Zero, getting eve better as speed increases. And if your Corsair isn't stalling, maybe you've booted up CFS2?

fordfan25
11-01-2004, 07:07 PM
one thing i have noticed about the f4u-1 in the game it loses power very fast as you gain alt. zeros are keeping up with me at 6000alt. thats not the way it should be in real life is it? or is it something im doing wrong. i have complex engien mng cut off in the difuculty setteings.

ZG77_Nagual
11-01-2004, 07:20 PM
The FM2 wildcat comes much closer to the zero in a turn. The corsair is the hardest to land on a carrier and owns the zero above 250mph - as it should. The zeros elevator and alerons fell off very sharply around 250 - whereas the corsair's best corner is around 270. The Corsair was also know for excellent roll and, like the hellcat, had very good accel - an important feature for carrier based planes. It's aerodynamics and e retention were also quite good. the Raiden, shiden and KI84 are all good matches with the corsair. The corsair's weird wings helped with both roll and stall.

The zero is outclassed unless it gets the bounce or catches the corsair below 250. The corsair is not too good.

fordfan25
11-01-2004, 08:05 PM
yea now i will say the wildcat may turn a bit to good from what i have always heard and read. but thats just my opinion. how ever im completly sure that i am unsure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LuftLuver
11-01-2004, 09:00 PM
Part of the "Corsair too good" claims stem from the fact that something weird has happened globally to the FMs. The one thing I see the Corsair doing is not stalling or snap rolling when the stick is abruptly pulled back. It can be done, but typically the plane just zooms on rails upwards. Now, the problem is that other planes are said to be guilty of this as well. Possibly even the FW190 Dora. It's a global issue I tell ya.

WUAF_Badsight
11-01-2004, 09:05 PM
btw FordFan . . . the WildCat is supposed to be close to the Zero's TnB performance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
11-01-2004, 09:25 PM
what is TnB? stands for turn and burn right? what is that exactly? i have always heard that the wildCat was alway a much slower dog fighter... or should i say CATfighter heeh...sorry.it couldnt make a turn or loop as fast. lost more speed when it did menuver and had a much slower climb rate. but thats what i have heard. i my self dont know.As it looks to me in game the cat is almost as quick in a turn its looping ability is deffently slower though lol i have the bullet holes to prove it.

dont take it that im tring to argue with you. just saying thats what i have read in books and such.of course iv read about cats wearing hats but i have never seen one. "no photo shop jobs please lol". although, i cought one of my cats going through my sock drawer the other day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif. lol

Hunde_3.JG51
11-01-2004, 09:48 PM
Like I said before, in my opinion it is a global issue not specific to the Corsair. IMHO the flight models have gone to a really bad place, which is more disappointing/frustrating to me than anything.

ZG77_Nagual
11-01-2004, 09:59 PM
The FM2 wildcat was a horse of a different color - just check the climb rate in the object viewer - MUCH more power - better sustained turn (best of all us planes if I'm not mistaken)

Anyway - I just tested the stall hypothesis with three a/c I know very well - the p38, p39 and 190a6. I have alot of time in all of these - particularly the 39 and 190a5/a6. I can make tracks if you like - these planes all snap stall - the 190's is quite abrupt - but also fairly easy to recover from - interestingly exactly as the brit tests read. The p39 is more difficult to recover and enters a flat spin fairly easily - which is not easy to recover from. The P38 is still twitchier than I think it should be - but I've adjusted and it is very effective against the japanese A/c.

Hellcat is also fairly twitchy as is the corsair - but these planes were purpose built to be very manageable in a stall - and have lots of wing area. The hellcat probably wins in low speed turn. The corsair has a feeling of lots of power at low speeds, and lots of intertia - you have to watch it on slow approaches - beyond a certain point intertia seems to carry it right over on it's back - but it also works for you - absorbing twitchy control inputs at low speeds a bit. It is brilliant fast - and very good slow as long as you watch throttle and stick. No match for the zero below 200mph.

The P39 is actually a better dogfighter than the corsair - at least in my tests - just have to watch your e more because she doesn't have that dig-yourself-out-of-a-ditch power.

Upshot - if there has been a change it's an improvement - but I don't see it - the planes I tested seem about the same.

J_Weaver
11-01-2004, 10:06 PM
Well, I don't have PF yet, but from everything I've read it seems that the flight models have been slightly changed to give us a little bigger margin for the carrier landings. However, because of these possible changes to the way planes handle at low speed this could make some planes seem too good.

Heck I don't know this was just a shot in the dark to what might be up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

PlimPlam
11-01-2004, 10:32 PM
The wildcat now? Jeebus H Crimeny has anyone here flown it? Its just a tubby little guy that I want to fly. So Hands Off!!!

Its not uber. It doesn't turn all that well. It stalls. Leave it alone.

Jockey for something else. The wildcat seems to be how it should be.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Bastages everyone of ya. Take the poor lil guy online and see how you fair. Its not uber.

Castrate the corsair if u must. But leave the wildcat alone.

WUAF_Badsight
11-01-2004, 10:40 PM
jeez talk about kneejerk . . . .

& Hunde , i bet its done on purpose , feels like FB v1.0 all over again

remember the first patch ? planes actually stalled & you seen E-fighting skyrocket 100% (FBv1.0 is a blast to try now & then)

Ruy Horta
11-01-2004, 11:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
F4U-4
The first F4U-4 was delivered to the US Navy on 31 October 1944. The F4U-4 was powered by C-series Double Wasp engine.

Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six .50 guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F4U-4 first saw combat over Okinawa, so it certainly has a right to be included the in plane set, however no cannon dash-4s saw WW2 service.

I've discussed this issue many times in the past and did get support from Barrett Tillman, historian and writer of a number of books on US Navy fighters, incl. the Corsair.

It appears that since the 1C and 4 saw first combat at the same time their stories intermingled and some have later changed the 1C into 4B.

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 06:19 PM
Hmm, well, I have been looking through the numbers on the various navy aircraft as well as P51, A8, and P38L... The navy planes generally have the best power loading AND wingloading, with the Corsair definitely being above average in the combination of both of those factors.

This should make the Corsair the best low speed turn fighter of all the American airplanes... That doesn't mean it should turn-fight a zero though as even the A6M2 has equal power load and of course drastically superior wingloading. But if any American plane could sustain a smoothe full-deflection full-power turn without stalling, the Corsair would be the best candidate for this stunt I think.

I don't have FB so I can't speak to how the physics engine may have changed on a global scale, but I'm not convinced that the American navy planes shouldn't be able to sustain low speed circles.

Note that with all of these aircraft, I can easily turn-stall them if I yank the stick even at high speed... So it's not like induced stalls are impossible with these flight models.

It would be great if we could get some testimony from air-show pilots who have tried to test the turn capabilities of the Corsair today... can it sustain a full elevator full power circle? It's not clear to me that this would be unrealistic.

If a plane can do this, that doesn't mean it's capable of out turn-fighting a zero or whatever, it just means that it's got good lift and power capabilities.

---

Here are the numbers that I computed from empty weights and emergency power just for the sake of best-case comparison (lower number is better):

plane Wing Load (kg / m^2) Power Load (kg / hp)
Zero-21: 75 1.77
F4F-3: 100 2.02
F4F-4: 111 2.23
F6F-5: 135 2.10
F4U-1: 138 1.78
P-51D: 159 2.01
P-47D: 166 2.01
FW A8: 173 1.87
P-38L: 191 1.81

So the Corsair has good wing loading and the best power loading of these aircraft (equalling the Zero). The P38 should be the worst in a sustained turn but it does have good power loading to help pull it through. The Zero of course has astonishing wing loading. I was surprised at how light the Wildcats are... except for their anemic power, they should be reasonably good in a brief turn fight... good instantaneous turn capability but their engine can't necessarily counteract speed bleed in a sustained turn with the light Japanese fighters.

SkyChimp
11-03-2004, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
The FM2 wildcat was a horse of a different color - just check the climb rate in the object viewer - MUCH more power - better sustained turn (best of all us planes if I'm not mistaken)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only production fighter plane that could turn tighter than the FM-2 was apparently the Ryan FR-1 Fireball. Of course, it didn't see action in WWII. But it would be a neat plane to have in PF.

DangerForward
11-03-2004, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:

This should make the Corsair the best low speed turn fighter of all the American airplanes... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair has a higher stall speed(172mph) at 3G than the P38, so at low speeds it shouldn't be great turn-wise. The advantages of the low wing loading and power is offset by the spoiler added to the wing to make the plane stall evenly. It should turn good at higher speeds though. I got the Corsair to stall correctly at 3G, but I don't know what its 4 or 5G limits are. The P63 is probably the best low speed turner of the late war US planes(3G stall @ 132mph).

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:
I got the Corsair to stall correctly at 3G, but I don't know what its 4 or 5G limits are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you tell when you're pulling a precise acceleration in G's? Is there some way to bring up a G-meter?

CV8_Dudeness
11-03-2004, 09:17 PM
Devicelink

CV8_Dudeness
11-03-2004, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The only production fighter plane that could turn tighter than the FM-2 was apparently the Ryan FR-1 Fireball. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
but what about the Ki-27 ?

wasnt it the tightest turning monoplane of WW2 ?

Korolov
11-03-2004, 09:29 PM
If we get a -4, then we need a La-11 and IL-10 to go with it for proper Korean War scenarios.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

EDIT: I also don't know what all the gripes about the Corsair's turning is about. So far I've shot down more F4Us online than I have anything else.

fordfan25
11-03-2004, 09:32 PM
and a f86 then

CV8_Dudeness
11-03-2004, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
If we get a -4, then we need a La-11 and IL-10 to go with it for proper Korean War scenarios. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

awww *** on

La-9 ! ! ! ! , La-11 was the larger fuel tank version , the 9 was more agile !



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
Devicelink <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, is that an answer to my question?

DangerForward
11-03-2004, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
Devicelink <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, is that an answer to my question? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that's how I did it. Devicelink. You can also go off the handy stall light in the Corsair. I think it lights up between 5 and 15 knots above stall. Devicelink is more accurate.

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2004, 10:14 PM
Sorry, but I don't know what that is. The mere word "devicelink" is not an explanation of how to bring up an accelerometer. Would someone care to post an actual explanation?

Thanks.

fordfan25
11-03-2004, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
If we get a -4, then we need a La-11 and IL-10 to go with it for proper Korean War scenarios. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

awww *** on

La-9 __! ! ! !__ , La-11 was the larger fuel tank version , the 9 was more agile !



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dude, do you mean COME on....some ones been visiting to many porn sites lol

DangerForward
11-03-2004, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
Sorry, but I don't know what that is. The mere word "devicelink" is not an explanation of how to bring up an accelerometer. Would someone care to post an actual explanation?

Thanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a little complex. Basically PF can dump out a bunch of data to an external program using an interface built into the game called "Devicelink". You add a section to your conf file to turn it on. There's several programs out there written to use it. I think it's detailed in one of the readmes. There's several topics dealing with it over at simhq.

Aaron_GT
11-04-2004, 02:57 AM
" The one thing I see the Corsair doing is not stalling or snap rolling when the stick is abruptly pulled back."

Does when I fly it if I use rough stick handling. Of course it might not be as much as it should be (who knows) but you can get it into an accelerated stall from around 250 mph that will lead almost immediately into a snap roll and sometimes a total stall following.

SkyChimp
11-04-2004, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The only production fighter plane that could turn tighter than the FM-2 was apparently the Ryan FR-1 Fireball. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
but what about the Ki-27 ?

wasnt it the tightest turning monoplane of WW2 ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was speaking of US fighters.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2004, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:
It's a little complex. Basically PF can dump out a bunch of data to an external program using an interface built into the game called "Devicelink". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks guys for the lead to DeviceLink... it seems like the kind of thing I might use to determine turn G, but... I've looked over devicelink.txt which describes the API (and thereby the data available through this interface) and there is nothing in there that I can see that I can use to determine acceleration or angle of attack.

To get these quantities I would need time and either position or a velocity vector, but neither of these are in the API.

Is there more to the API than documented in devicelink.txt? DangerForward, how precisely did you determine that you were holding a 3G turn to measure stall speeds at that rate?